Courtesy of Aseem R. Shukla Aseem R. Shukla.The University of Pennsylvania recently withdrew an invitation to Gujarat’s chief minister, Narendra Modi, who was to deliver a keynote address at the Wharton School’s India Economic Forum via video link later this month. The withdrawal, based on questions raised about Mr. Modi’s human rights record, has spurred an animated debate about freedom of speech and Mr. Modi’s leadership credentials in India and among the Indian diaspora.
On March 6, India Ink carried an interview with Ania Loomba, a professor of English at the Univrsity of Pennsylvania, who helped mobilize opposition to Mr. Modi’s speech. In a petition to the university, Ms. Loomba and other professors accused Mr. Modi of not doing enough to prevent communal riots in Gujarat in 2002 that resulted in the deaths of more than 1,000 people, most of whom were Muslim, allegations Mr. Modi has repeatedly denied.
“We were concerned that this conference would help contribute to his efforts to sanitize his government’s record,†Ms. Loomba said.
But opinions among the university’s faculty on the situation are far from unanimous. India Ink contacted Aseem R. Shukla, an associate professor of surgery at The Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and a co-founder of the Hindu American Foundation, an advocacy group, for another point of view. In an e-mail interview, Mr. Shukla explained why he thinks the university made a mistake.
Why do you think UPenn was wrong to rescind Narendra Modi’s invitation to speak at the Wharton forum
The rescinding of Mr. Modi’s invitation just weeks before he was scheduled to address the forum went against the most fundamental tenets of freedom of thought, speech and inquiry that the University of Pennsylvania categorically upholds as published policy.
Indeed, this university was lauded recently as among the top seven institutions [in America] for respecting free expression on campus. In capitulating to the petition that a few of my Penn colleagues initiated, this vaunted ideal of free speech was reduced to a platitude; Penn invited international opprobrium; and the university insulted legions of Indians and Indian-Americans who, while not necessarily supporting Mr. Modi as a politician, have confidence in India’s demcracy and judiciary.
Students and faculty of Indian origin are justifiably aggrieved that their invite list encountered asymmetric scrutiny and rejection in the face of perceived controversy.
Penn’s tradition of free speech was celebrated when extreme anti-Israel speakers, Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam and radical Occupy Wall Street protesters held sway on campus. But free speech became an empty homily when it came to the speaker selection of a group of Indian-American business school students.
Why do you think the university made such a decision if it would stir controversy and could potentially cause the university embarrassment
I am not privy to the internal discussions at Wharton, nor the university administration. To me, my university manifestly misfired in the disinvitation on varied fronts:
A) It inserted Penn into the Indian political square by its insult of Mr. Modi â€" the most popular political! leader i! n India by most opinion polls.
B) It erroneously regarded the anti-Modi petition as a collective representation of Penn’s diverse faculty.
And C) It woefully underestimated that Indians and Indian-Americans across the globe are finding their voice, exercising the shared American and Indian ideal of mobilizing mass protests and articulating indignation.
Why do you think he was invited to speak in the first place
In any forum where business and India intersect, one may rightly presume that the politician feted by the United States Business Council, prominent economists and every major industrial leader in India as the paradigmatic leader for economic development and corruption-free governance in contemporary politics would be included on a panel.
As a likely prime ministerial candidate, dialogue should be fostered with Mr. Modi, rather than eschewed.
Mr. Modi represents the largest opposition political party in Indiafrom the center-right. Wharton students had invited leaders of the center-left ruling political party as well. Â The panel was balanced and diverse ideologies were set to be heard. This balance is now lost, and the forum will suffer loss of credibility and prestige as a result.
The professors whose petition prompted the revoking of Mr. Modi’s invitation argued that inviting him as a keynote speaker amounted to an endorsement of his leadership. Do you agree
Does the university endorse Mr. Farrakhan because he spoke on our campus Or House majority leader Eric Cantor, who was invited by Wharton to address the community  Is Penn anti-Israel because Palestinian activists calling for an electronic intifada and cessation of all relations with Israel had their say here
I have tremendous respect for the intellectual capacity and discretion of students at Penn.  We as faculty must advocate that our university never compromise on its ! mission t! o foster the free exchange of ideas and teach students to make informed decisions after diligently gathering facts.  Faculty is empowered to join this dialogue and air opposition to speakers â€" as the faculty petitioners did, but faculty must not insinuate troubles and intimidate with avowals to protest portentously,  “in a variety of ways,†as those petitioners also did.
To you, what does Narendra Modi stand for
As a high-profile, polarizing national leader, Mr. Modi means many things to many people. Â He has legions of detractors and spirited supporters. Â I am free to love him or hate him, but none of that should have any bearing on whether my students are entitled to hear directly from him and render their own judgments.
What would you say to the United States, which continues to deny Mr. Modi a visa
When the Supreme Court of India’s Special Investigative Team xonerated Mr. Modi of all accusations that he did not do enough to stop the horrible riots that gripped Gujarat in 2002, the United Kingdom and European Union ended its boycott of Mr. Modi.
Several U.S. legislators are entering statements into the Congressional Record that the Modi visa denial should be revisited in light of the Supreme Court report, because the visa denial repudiates the freely democratic election of 60 million Gujaratis in India, and because the visa denial could endanger the burgeoning potential for American economic investment in that state.
What would you say to Mr. Modi’s critics who ask, in the context of the 2002 riots if human rights can be divorced from development
Human rights and development must not be mutually exclusive.  Indeed, as Columbia University’s economist Jagadish Bhagwati recently wrote, Mr. Modi’s “Gujarat model†of economic growth is generating revenue that is being utilized! for prof! ound improvements in the social sector, health, and education.
When a democratic society such as India develops economically, a societal imperative to address human rights concerns begins to gain primacy.  Gujarat is often considered the most developed state in India, and social indicators show concurrent improvement.  This week’s Indian government report states that  malnutrition under Mr. Modi’s Gujarat had the largest decline in the nation.
The 2002 riots were a national tragedy, but part of a tragically recurrent phenomenon in communally-charged Gujarat state that preceded Mr. Modi’s government.
Dozens, including leaders of many political parties, have been found guilty and sentenced for instigating and carrying out attacks during those riots.  Mr. Modi denies culpability and Gujarat’s and India’s Supreme Court, thus far, bear him out.  If courts find otherwise, he must face the full fury of the law, just as Mr. Modi often states.
How wold you react to critics who say support for Mr. Modi and his governance stems from a deliberate and orchestrated public relations campaign
My answers above are predicated on empirical facts.
In your opinion, can a polarizing figure like Mr. Modi lead a large and diverse country like India.
Politics are inherently polarizing, depending on one’s perspective.  In the United States, just less than half of all Americans would say that President Barack Obama is a polarizing figure unfit to lead this country.  The inability of Congress to find middle ground elicits fair questions about electoral dysfunction.
But that is the nature of democracy that we embrace as a fair compromise for liberty and freedom to choose our leaders, and sometimes, to hear from them even when we detest what they may have to say.
This interview has been lightly edited.
No comments:
Post a Comment